January 18, 2018

"... especially if he is kicking the limp Washington establishment around. Trump’s instinct-driven behavior confirms that he is the archetypal alpha-male, the unfiltered reptilian brain, concerned only with sustenance, survival or sex. If anything enters his world, they know he must either eat it, kill it, or mate with it. That’s why they like him. For about half of America, that is terrifying. For the other half, Trump’s strength is the only thing they can count on to protect them from return of the elite bloodsuckers who would devour them.... Trump’s supporters don’t expect his unrestrained id to ponder the details of briefing papers before he eats the red meat in front of him. As long as Trump displays strength and grabs the media, the establishment and America’s adversaries by the pussy, he’s the T Rex many of his supporters want."

Said Alex Castellanos, "a veteran Republican media consultant and Trump loyalist," asked to comment on the subject of "why Trump and his supporters are immune to the attacks of the #MeToo movement," and quoted in "Can Democrats Follow #MeToo to Victory?" (NYT), the column by Thomas B. Edsall discussed in the previous post.

I had to break out that quote for a separate post, because it's so well written! But is it true? It's at least truthy.

198 comments:

Said the apologists for Bimbo Eruption Squad doyenne and utterer of the “Deplorables” comment and speaker of “We came! We saw! He died! (Chuckle, guffaw!)” who was so sure she was going to win that she didn’t even bother to campaign in Wisconsin.

The only thing that saves the democratic party is the biased media. But for that, Trump would be kicking the leftist establishment into oblivion and would have the support of a vast majority of Americans. The Americans who read the truth, are strong supporters of Trump because he is destroying the leftist trend that has gripped this country for decades.

Did Trump rape that woman ARM or was it consensual? Because if it was consensual, it has no bearing on the topic, no matter how gross an unverifiable accusation it is. Did you hear the one about Trump paying bookers to per in Obama's bed?

There are so many glass-enclosed 'Gods' of the Left that we're only supposed to bow to, and not question. The list of their Gods with the accompanying social commandments keeps growing, expanding every few years. We've been watching this for decades until now we're at the point where America is bad, white people are bad, men are bad, Capitalism is bad, the South is bad, Police are bad, Israel is bad, questioning that men should use the men's room is bad, Energy independence- bad. Conservative thought....banned. Etc, etc.

Trump just tends to shatter the glass enclosing these things. Many of us just wanted someone to call a thing what it is. I was looking for someone to go to Washington and 'shake out that worn, tired blanket'. Shake up that world. He's doing that, plus so much more. It's pure entertainment.

The falsity in the quote is the presumption that half the country adores Trump and half abhors Trump.

It may be true that half (or more?) of the country abhors Trump, but only a third -- at best -- of the country adores Trump in the way that Alex Castellanos describes. Trump's core fandom is not enough to win elections. What won the election (barely) for Trump in 2016 was that percentage of Republicans and independents who abhor Trump but who cast votes for Trump as the least worst of two poor choices.

Never, ever, has Trump ever gotten to 50% or more in general approval or likeability polling. Trump won 46.1% of the 2016 vote, even with the votes of Republicans and independents who more or less intensely disliked him.

The line that "His supporters do not care if he is predatory, insulting or offensive as long as he is never in doubt" reminds me of Trump's own line that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and his base of supporters would not care.

It says everything about those supporters; much more than it says anything about Trump.

With Obama and Clinton selling Us out to whatever evil countries had the most money or power to give to them, I am 100% behind the man who loves America, and is probably the only one who could withstand the way they attack him minute by minute.....He is returning America back into the powerhouse WE ARE....and not the pathetic cow-down to others for "equality and diversity" crowd. It feels good to have some extra cash in my pocket too. I have heard Obama and his administration call us terrorists, jihadists, arsonists, crazy, teabaggers, barbarians, and a whole lot of other names because we believed in less government, and LESS TAXES. Trump calling a shithole a shithole was the truth...so let them cry and carry on....THEY need help.

Whenever someone mentions the Trump shooting line, I just remember that Bill Clinton, known rapist, received a huge amount of votes and the full institutional support of his party. Something is fundamentally broken in our politics.

Sebastian said..."Trump's core fandom is not enough to win elections."

Sorry, fellow commenters. Gotta agree with the LLR here.

RINOs and nice women will bail out on Trump in the coming elections, boosting the blue wave.

Sebastian;Respectfully, you might be right. But perhaps you'll agree with me, that candidates matter. Trump won in large part because he was up against an historically weak opponent.Trump could win again, and other Republicans could win or lose, based on the quality of the candidates who oppose them.I think it is a huge problem for the Democrats right now; whether to pick a mainstream, moderate anti-Trump battle weapons... Or more identity-politics liberals.

Matthew Sablan said...Did Trump rape that woman ARM or was it consensual? Because if it was consensual, it has no bearing on the topic, no matter how gross an unverifiable accusation it is. Did you hear the one about Trump paying bookers to per in Obama's bed?

Castellanos may have part of a reasonable explanation as to why Dems aren't going to win from all the moralizing about Trump. But Trump supporters are still being boxed in. If Trump is more or less thinking and acting strategically--that is, he is bright and experienced, he knows what works, and he is thinking and acting quite coolly, in a businesslike way, not really suffering from narcissism or hatred of anyone--then his supporters must be cruel hangers-on of a bully, living vicariously through a guy who takes no prisoners. Why isn't it possible that a points or merit system of immigration makes a lot more sense than open borders? In general the U.S. needs more restrictions on immigration, maybe a wall? On other issues, there is something to be said for mainstream Republican positions, especially if the Republicans happen to win an election? I think it was Chris Matthews who said (somewhat reluctantly) that Americans will focus on someone who cares more about their country than some other country. And of course it's also true that in war sometimes you need a general who is basically a good killer; in politics you need someone who can do a somewhat nasty job.

Trump wasn't up against a historically weak opponent in the primaries, Chuck, where he slaughtered one of the finest group of Republican candidates ever assembled. He also won the general -- the one in which he had "no path to 270" - with more than 300 electoral votes. You're simply too fucking stupid to see what's right in front of you.

This Trump character could be quite useful for a while to fix up a country that was going down fast like a Titannic rigged to sink by its last 3 Presidents, who were working for other countries for wealth grabs.

And then when we are safe again, we can disavow knowledge of such a rude and harsh captain.

It seems like a pretty reasonable diagnosis. Of course, the larger problem is the cult of personality that surrounds the presidency in our society. Combining the head of government and head of state into a single Executive was a bad idea, and it certainly should go if we ever do Constitution 2.0.

In short, the guy is saying Trump's supporters like him because he is loud, braying, vulgar, grandiose, ignorant, crass, insulting, xenophobic, thoughtless, resentful and childish. This seems spot-on and self-evident. We have been conditioned by popular culture to admire "renegades" who disregard every social or professional propriety to kick ass and "solve" complicated problems with blunt, unconsidered and violent "solutions."

I don't think a 'Trump loyalist' would describe Trump supporters the way Alex Castellanos did. It's not a flattering portrait of Trump or of his supporters -- even if it were accurate. Instead, Castellanos sounds like someone who is trying to imagine what Trump's supporters see in Trump that he, himself, doesn't actually see.

Many, I suspect, support Trump despite his vulgarities and not because of them. They like him because he's not Hillary and he's not Obama. He's not trying to take away their guns and he's reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape. His nominations to the federal courts have been superb.

Do they enjoy seeing the media being taken down a peg? Of course! It's been a long time coming. But, they might prefer he'd do it with more class and less profanity. But, in the end, he's not Hillary. Which was more than enough this past election.

Trump gets it. The SJW Left that is running the Democrat Party and the "elite" media and academia are a ruthless bunch of Maoists. #MeToo, BLM, all identity politics is openly targeting whites in general (and males in particular) for group punishment and reeducation. Every institution, from the military to schools to private corporations like Google, is being turned into a hostile environment for white (and asian) males.

A principal tool legitimizing this SJW power grab is the MSM, and Trump is engaged in a death struggle to destroy their legitimacy, even as they are determined to destroy him. He is the first Republican president to recognize the reality of the death struggle. The Bushes, Romney, McCain all are frightfully naive about the fact that the MSM hated them, or assumed that the beast could be mollified by centrist compromise. Trump is under no such illusions.

Sebastian said..."RINOs and nice women will bail out on Trump in the coming elections, boosting the blue wave."

I agree with this.

Many of us live in a bubble, too: we read stories that the media doesn't cover. We read different angles on what the media does cover.

Many still get their news -- and their signals about what is acceptable -- from CNN.

Many of these people will be worn down by the 24/7 anti-Trump coverage.

Many of these people will be worn down by their friends and acquaintances and family.

They will want to cast a vote against Trump so they can tell their friends and family -- this time -- that they didn't vote for him.

They want to not feel that they are on the Outside anymore.

They will want to come in from the Cold.

They will choose to believe that anything Trump accomplished would've happened, anyway. That it will continue to happen despite whoever is elected.

And they will fall for the DREAMERs. The DREAMERs are the sad dogs in the TV commercials that ask for money for animal groups. They are ready to feel good about themselves again by believing to help people they will only abstractly deal with as a result.

They will begin to resent the criticisms of Millennials because those are their children: they are just misunderstood. The system is being unfair to them, after all. Because: those are my kids. They just need more help, that's all. And they will believe the Government helps. Because it is one of the few things they can hope for.

Because there are more people who, in their hearts, want to vote for Lennon's 'Imagine' world than for Trump.

Trump is the last of a world that many are too tired to want to fight for anymore. They are ready to Move On. Get relentless politics out of their lives. Which they can do when CNN likes the winners: the bad news goes away.

I saw some analysis that struck me as pretty spot on. Most people don't follow politics and don't really care at all about the arguments regarding policy differences. What they care about is status. And in the current environment status is conferred by organizations that are leftist, most especially the media. They create the environment that deems espousing certain beliefs to make you part of the right set. Being in the right set means you get invited to parties, hired, and promoted. So most people, being social animals who need each other to survive, espouse those beliefs, never having really thought much about them at all.

Which brings us to Trump. Trump is working to reduce the status of the MSM so that they no longer have the power to convey status to others. I, and I suspect a lot of other supporters, think that is great. And it is why the people in the MSM, and the people that derive their status from the MSM are going batshit bonkers. Because there is absolutely nothing more frightening to a high social status person than the prospect of losing that status.

True then, truer now. Money is flowing, jobs are being created, people will soon have more money in their pay envelopes. No amount of "shithole" or porn stars will outweigh people's wallets. Embrace the winning. Lie back and think of Melania.

If anyone spends time with WWII historical accounts of the horrible American men fighting in the Pacicic War against the racist and insane Japanese Empire, they will discover that all of the Sailors and Marines acted like mini Trumpian men. They were there with a resolve to defeat the commiers of Pearl Harbor's slaughter, and they ALL fought to the death at total risk to themselves, all to SAVE each other's lives and to save their Great American home.

Now go call them a bunch of reptilian snakes following their half human male ids. And then grow up.

Not to rain on the circle jerk but if Trump caves on immigration, as it appeared he was prepared to do before Dick Durbin rescued him from himself, his former supporters will be using the term wussy to describe him.

" They were there with a resolve to defeat the commiers of Pearl Harbor's slaughter, and they ALL fought to the death at total risk to themselves, all to SAVE each other's lives and to save their Great American home."

I believe a majority -- or coming close to it -- don't believe there is a "Great American home" anymore.

Ron said"Being in the right set means you get invited to parties, hired, and promoted."

That's what Samantha Power was talking about when she referred to the soft power dividend.And that's how they plan to have control. You can oppose them, but it will cost you and it will cost your kids. They believe politics is obsolete. "We know what works, we just need to do it", big data and experts, "people don't vote in their own best interests", etc.

Blogger Robert Cook said...In short, the guy is saying Trump's supporters like him because he is loud, braying, vulgar, grandiose, ignorant, crass, insulting, xenophobic, thoughtless, resentful and childish.If Trump had been all of these things, and had Bloomberg's attitude towards gun control we'd have President Hillary Clinton today. It is not the demeanor. Yesterday the NY Times wrote:The Times editorial board has been sharply critical of the Trump presidency, on grounds of policy and personal conduct.Bill Clinton got blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern young enough to be his daughter. The Times backed him 100% They did not see Bill Clinton's actions as a reason to be sharply critical of the Clinton presidency.If Trump's policies were Bill Clinton's policies, the NY Times would support Trump without reservation.

It says everything about those supporters; much more than it says anything about Trump.

Really? This asshole-style analysis by AC and you're own misremembering of the quote (and your inability to see hyperbole as a common speech pattern in Trump) tells you "everything" about us supporters? Everything? Smug self-assurance doesn't wear well on LLRs and other beta types.

How about this as a metric for us "supporters" to guide you: I care 100% about what Trump gets done and 0% what he says along the way. So him actually shooting someone or being outrageously abusive to someone would erode my support. But standard political SOP (including harsh language, you little snowflake) does not bother me one wit.

Trump fights. That’s why we like him. We don’t like it when he fights dirty, but since no one on the Right fights, we’ll accept the dirt for the fighting spirit within.

The entire world benefits from this man’s fight. A blanket of oppression was descending upon this globe, the oppression of free expression, and Trump grabbed it by the corner and gave it a mighty yank. Men and women whose voices had become trembling and silent are now learning to speak again thanks to Trump’s fighting spirit.

Continuing the hyperbole, I see Trump as analogous to Samson shorn of the religoius component, though in ego strength rather than physical. For the sin of slaying Democrats with the jawbone of an ass (how appropriate), our betters must humble/destroy him by any means necessary. So betrayed (by sex) and captured, Samson is chained to the temple where the Philistines, ironically in the modern sense, imagine they are successfully destroying him. Instead, Samson uses the very tools of his attackers to pull the temple down upon them.

Looks more like other people trying to maintain a world view that is unrealistic and less and less coherent. This is, what? the ten thousandth time we've seen a version of this "analysis" in print?

This obsessing about what's allegedly going on in the ids of Those People is really just an expression of what's going on in the ids of these people. The "veteran Republican media consultant and Trump loyalist" may be expressing his "essential" individual view (and surely that of some Trump supporters, some subset of whom will probably be as dumb and nutty as the anti-Trumper softheads). But it would be more accurate to say he's "explaining" Trump's support in the only terms that the "terrified" are capable of understanding. See Paco @7:14 - yet again we are treated to insight into anti-Trumpers via their own lack of self-insight.

One can accurately start with "Trump supporters enjoy seeing him flip off the smug self-styled elites who think they own the joint" (why yes, we do), but one has to be hopelessly blinkered to believe that's the, er, red meat of it. To segue (without any logic to speak of) from that enjoyment to "Trump is stupid and ignorant and impulsive (so we're terrified)" is merely the stupidest sort of projection. You're terrified because of the mess in your own id and your increasingly incoherent mental maps, dumbkopf, not somebody else's.

Why are "Trump and his supporters...immune to the attacks of the #MeToo movement"? Gee, I dunno, why are Trump and his supporters immune to all the looney crap that's been ginned up since Trump started running? Because it's really, really stupid shit that mentally stable adults of normal or better intelligence don't take seriously?

“A principal tool legitimizing this SJW power grab is the MSM, and Trump is engaged in a death struggle to destroy their legitimacy, even as they are determined to destroy him. He is the first Republican president to recognize the reality of the death struggle. The Bushes, Romney, McCain all are frightfully naive about the fact that the MSM hated them, or assumed that the beast could be mollified by centrist compromise. Trump is under no such illusions.”

I checked out Ace’s blog yesterday and found he had written an excellent post about this. As Ace notes, Leftist pols, the media and academia behave like aristocrats (although they lack the taste and manners that European aristos traditionally had). They don’t argue their points – they simply decree: “If you are not for (gay marriage, trannies in women’s bathrooms, abortion rights, open borders) you are a bigot.” That’s it. It doesn’t matter how many well-reasoned counter arguments opponents publish in NRO or Commentary or the American Spectator. The Left decrees and most people, who are not terribly interested in politics or confrontion and do not want to be called bigots, will simply go along. The National Review can stand athwart history and yell “Stop!” all they want. It doesn’t matter.

Trump, a media-made man, instinctively understands that the only way to fight our aristocracy is to hold them up for mockery and ridicule. That horrifies delicate creatures like David Brooks and Lindsay Graham and Bill Kristol because truth be told, they are quite comfortable with the status quo. In Victorian England, honorary knighthoods were coveted by members of the middle class. The hereditary aristos like the Duke of Bedham still regarded them as inferiors and commoners – but the Sirs and Dames were still a cut above the masses and that was enough for them. Similarly, it doesn’t matter to Brooks and Kristol and all the other GOPe pussies that they’re not quite equal to the Krugmans and Kimmels and Mahers. They’re still part of the Establishment; still more important than the auto worker in Michigan or the farmer in Missouri who voted for Trump. So what if their elegantly worded criticism of some example of campus PC foolishness has absolutely no impact in the real world! They get invites to Georgetown cocktail parties! Are they going to jeopardize their social standing by aligning themselves with the Orange Vulgarian in the WH?

And does anybody doubt that if Trump had lost, Hillary’s administration would have certainly continued to go after not only him, but his children and his businesses in order to utterly ruin him? I said as much several months before the election. I was sure he would lose and I was also sure he would pay a very heavy price for daring to challenge the queen and the media. If Trump had lost, he’d still be in the news constantly, since Hillary would have sicced the DOJ on him and the media would have continued to hound him. And the leftists who now accuse us of being obsessed with Hillary would have relished watching the fall of the Trump family. The message would have been “Nobody should ever again dare to oppose the left, or we will utterly destroy them.” Of course, that’s what they’re trying to do now, but it of course makes a hell of difference that Trump is in the Oval Office instead of being a private citizen.

There are many things that irk me about Trump’s style, but I have to hand him this – he does not lack courage.

Like the fellow who jumped out of the plane, halfway down, "So far, not too bad".

America bailed without a parachute when it elected Obama, who thoughtlessly balloon the deficit while savagely throttling economic growth. The only means we have to save our republic from the dismal fate of the also-rans of history is an economy that expands faster than the debt accumulates.

Simpletons will reply that Trump's tax reductions will cause the debt to increase faster. Practical economists, those whose salaries depend on accurate predictions as opposed to tenured academic theorists, understand this principle well. What will save us is increased tax revenue, not increased tax rates.

That's it in a nutshell. Picture the cave woman, hungry, with kids to feed. Would she prefer a caveman sitting on a stone contemplating his navel and philosophizing about food or one who goes out and brings it home? Churchill wasn't a nice man, either, but he brought home the bacon.

How does the religious right reconcile their support for this man? How will Republicans and the religious right get over the fact they turned a blind eye? We should never let them forget it.

I can't speak for the religious right, but for most of us we look at people who hate Trump -- like you, for instance -- and we tell ourselves that if a sanctimonious bitch like you hates him, then there must be good in him somewhere.

It doesn't take a lot of insight to figure out the left's strategy until the mid-terms. Character assassination and, especially since Trump is picking up support from Hispanics and Blacks, accusations of racism.

Trump is not fully "immune," but after years of watching people like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton being lionized by the same media people and Democrats (I repeat myself) who tell us we should be repelled by Trump, Trump has some "antibodies."

And these weasels in 2017 suddenly finding that maybe Kennedy (dead) and Clinton (of no further use) were less than perfect gentlemen is so hypocritical and insulting that it probably works in Trump's favor by reminding us of their true motivations.

My first reaction to the Access Hollywood tape was "OMG!!" but it only took about 5 seconds to understand that Trump was only bantering and I knew all along he was a horndog, whereas (in terms of precedent) JFK compromised the Presidency by taking up with Judith Campbell Exner, Ted Kennedy was probably a rapist (Wm. Kennedy Smith, undoubtedly) and certainly left a woman to die, and Bill Clinton was almost certainly a rapist, used (Arkansas State) police as procurers, and that Hillary ran the political operation to demean or buy off the women he had abused. So it actually reminded me of all the baggage Clinton and the Democrats carried without changing my opinion of Trump, about whom it just confirmed what I already knew.

I do not know how typical I am but among people willing to give Trump a chance I do not think I am a huge outlier. The people who already opposed Trump can see what they want, but I will stand by my thinking. One can wish the choice in 2016 were better, but by October it was what it was.

It's simple... People support Trump because he **FIGHTS** and **WINS**... The battlefield has been stacked against the right for so long by the left's bullshit rules of engagement... And then Trump comes along and blow's all that out of the water by refusing to let them dictate his strategy / actions... Instead, he takes a sledgehammer to the whole thing...

And I hate to break it to you, but Trump's approval ratings are GROWING, despite the never-ending screeching cacophony of the MSM... Just image what will happen when the economy REALLY starts to take off and we see criminal indictments against the Clinton's and Obama's deep-state operatives... We still have 3 solid years to make those things a reality... It's only going to get better from here...

When Bill Clinton was going through his troubles as president, my attitude was that although I don't approve of married people having affairs, it would be his personal business if he had a woman on the side. However, he didn't just have a mistress, he was screwing around with a White House intern while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment case. And he committed perjury. That took it into a whole different realm and made it my business.

It is in the best interest of Christians and believing Jews to elect those who uphold our Constitutional rights. Hillary and crew, as well as some RINOs, would make speech a crime and infringe upon Christian practices by its high-handed, Christian-hating, pro-abortion social engineering agenda.

Female chauvinists are poor representatives of women. Witch hunts (e.g. denying due process, conviction through allegation, trial by press or public lynching) and baby hunts (e.g. conflation of private and public concerns) are intolerable.

Lloyd W. Robertson: Why isn't it possible that a points or merit system of immigration makes a lot more sense than open borders? In general the U.S. needs more restrictions on immigration, maybe a wall?

Why, indeed. Apply that question to any number of presently contentious policy issues. It's interesting how they've all been transformed into moral issues, with common sense and prudence banned from the debate. I think this happens because, taking the open borders/non-stop mass immigration stance as an example, the "correct" opinion is plainly insane. It is, however, profitable and useful to people who can buy pols.

If what I want is plainly a bad idea, then my only recourse is to rule arguments against it out of court. To this end, what cannot be defended on merits must become a moral crusade against the people whose interests are damaged by what I want. And that's fairly easy to do, on a population that is easily propagandized because they don't know any history. This has all been discussed before, but even my cynical self is impressed by just how hysterical the moral crusade has become, and how eagerly the toadies degrade themselves for it. (For God's sake, what are these people so terrified about? They're clearly terrified of something. Do they even know? The void within, my best guess.)

How does the religious right reconcile their support for this man? How will Republicans and the religious right get over the fact they turned a blind eye? We should never let them forget it.

You mean, as opposed to the administration & party that took the motherfucking Little Sisters of the Poor to the Supreme Court? Vote for that party because they have "principles"?

I'm sorry, but just how much "social good" does a religious group have to do before the grubby paws of the lefty state leaves them alone? I would think that whatever that level is, the LSotP surpasses it. But, apparently not. The Republic got by for 200 years without hauling up a Catholic religious order before the Supreme Court for defending its 2000 year old beliefs, but, noooo, it was just too much for our buddies in the Obama admin.

So, Inga, when you ask yourself why do people of faith support a rake like Trump, here's the words you need to say to yourself --- "Because he doesn't take the Little Sisters of the Poor before the Supreme Court".

Republican political and media consultants are one reason Republicans are known as "The Stupid Party."

There are many Trump supporters, particularly among Christians, who are not drawn by his ultra boorish, macho persona. We support him politically despite being repelled by him personally because he seems to be an impediment to the agenda of The Evil Party, their consorts in the swamp and their enabling leftymediaswine.

"Because he doesn't take the Little Sisters of the Poor before the Supreme Court"

Unfortunately, selective-child, unlike one-child, is a social malaise with long tendrils. It is a wicked solution to a hard problem that was normalized by a large and progressive minority. Still, there is the hope that they will repent and sin no more. In the meantime, the Little Sisters are expected to conform.

It is difficult to think as if you are someone else, Trump in this case, and so people don't think, they just blah blah blah.

Trump is a regular human being, like many before and many that will come after. He defends America and himself against constant attack, and is subsequently (obviously, of course) attacked for being an attacking predator.

Dumb to play along not noticing the shit-game. "Don't hurt me!" they scream as they murder you and your dogs.

This stupidity is based in part on the sundry label of Republican, like a life long one or some other fallacious shit isn't argument for the man as opposed to against the man, and ergo it's more valid that of some vapid progdouche saying the same idiocy. Bullshit. It's all idiocy.

Trump is a better lover, more humane in every way, and infinitely more kind and gentile than anyone who has ever not only criticized him but entertained the mere notion of doing so.

Cookie said, "In short, the guy is saying Trump's supporters like him because he is loud, braying, vulgar, grandiose, ignorant, crass, insulting, xenophobic, thoughtless, resentful and childish. This seems spot-on and self-evident."

Not at all evident and not at all spot-on. I agree that Trump can be loud, insulting, and even vulgar at times, but I have never seen or heard him bray, be grandiose, act ignorant, be crass, xenophobic, thoughtless, resentful, and least of all, childish.

That you think so speaks worlds about you. I see Trump as a normal guy, brighter than most, and one who is willing to see the world as it is and not as he wishes it to be. I am so thankful he was elected--against anyone, let alone Hillary.

BTW, I was delighted to see that Wisconsin Rep. Sean Kelly took it upon himself to invite a young veteran to the SOTU address. The vet, who is a black/Hispanic Trump voter, had tweeted out that he would be honored to attend the SOTU in Maxine Waters’ place. Kelly was smart enough to promptly offer the vet his wife’s ticket. The two of them were on “Fox and Friends” this morning and were exuberant – what a contrast to that pickle puss Waters! Kelly also said he’d be taking the vet out to dinner before the address.

If other Republicans are smart, they will give tickets to other Trump supporting vets to attend in place of the other boycotters. If they do, I would bet money that Trump will point them out during the address and turn the narrative around on the Dems. Look at these young patriots, who are honored to be in this place! The jackasses’ little hissy fit and PR stunt will backfire and they’ll look like the churlish, petty, ugly ingrates they are.

The Dems are piss poor at governing, but good at PR (of course, they get a big assist from the media). The GOP needs to get better at it. This is a good opportunity for them.

"We support him politically despite being repelled by him personally because he seems to be an impediment to the agenda of The Evil Party, their consorts in the swamp and their enabling leftymediaswine."

"Trump is a better lover, more humane in every way, and infinitely more kind and gentile than anyone who has ever not only criticized him but entertained the mere notion of doing so."

Are you saying that he is anti-semitic?

Jokes aside, my liberal Democrat fiancé worked with Donald Trump about 25 years ago in NYC. She would never vote for him in a million years, but stated that she directly experienced him as a generous and compassionate person.

You seem to keep forgetting that the alternative was Hillary FUCKING Clinton. But really, what hombre said, I am not even a Christian but I know that Jesus said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” in Aramaic, anyways.

I was just subjected to “The View” while at Subway and Whoopee says “Abortion is nobody’s business.” Then the next sentence “I don’t believe in telling anybody how to raise their kids, but if I think a neighbor is abusing a child, you bet your ass I am getting the police involved!” (I paraphrase)

Like Inga, Whoopee cannot conceive of a universe where killing a baby might be considered “child abuse” by some people.

Althouse knows it’s killing a human being, she doesn’t pretend that the people who are against abortion don’t have legitimate and valid reasons. I never read her pretend that a baby is really a “fetus”.

I am “pro-choice” as well. Probably for the same reasons as Althouse, or pretty close. What I don’t see her doing is lecturing people who disagree with her about their own beliefs on the matter and telling that they have their own beliefs wrong, the way you do.

“Althouse knows it’s killing a human being, she doesn’t pretend that the people who are against abortion don’t have legitimate and valid reasons. I never read her pretend that a baby is really a “fetus”.”

I’ve also said that it’s killing a human being, that I have not had any abortions, but I would not force women to give birth. I’m in favor of limiting abortions to 20 weeks and I’ve said so on this blog multiple times. I’ve referred to the child being aborted as a “baby”. Perhaps you should’ve asked me what my stance on abortion was before accusing me of things you’ve imagined.

Why do you comment on the blog of a person who doesn’t wake up every morning thinking of ways to end the Trump presidency?

Perhaps you should’ve asked me what my stance on abortion was before accusing me of things you’ve imagined.

Well, perhaps you should have asked Christians with an open mind why thy might support Trump over Clinton instead of telling them that they had their beliefs wrong, so I guess we are even. It was a binary choice.

“Well, perhaps you should have asked Christians with an open mind why thy might support Trump over Clinton instead of telling them that they had their beliefs wrong, so I guess we are even. It was a binary choice.”

Well perhaps putting your “belief” in a human is the problem. I’ll put my belief in God and I’ll live my beliefs.

tcross, you don’t understand. She is not a “Clinton apologist” she just thinks that Louis CK was worse! Because either the women are all lying, or well, forcible and violent rape is not as bad as jerking off in front of people who voluntarily came to your hotel room.

That’s no kind of apology for Bill Clinton!

Same as ARM doesn’t defend him! It’s just that all the things people say about him are “crazy conspiracy theories!”

Same and AntFa aren’t crypto fascists, It’s right in their name dummy!

Inga, my dear, first of all, comments on a blog don't hurt me. I'm not a leftist snowflake who needs safe spaces and puppies and Play Doh to cope, like the weak girls and soy boys on your side. Secondly, you are far too stupid to hurt anybody with your lame insults. And you wouldn't know the Truth if it walked up to you and grabbed you by the p***y.

Inga, my dear, first of all, comments on a blog don't hurt me. I'm not a leftist snowflake who needs safe spaces and puppies and Play Doh to cope, like the weak girls and soy boys on your side. Secondly, you are far too stupid to hurt anybody with your lame insults. And you wouldn't know the Truth if it walked up to you and grabbed you by the p***y.

Au contraire. Obviously they do hurt you or you wouldn’t react the way you do (Or you’re a very angry person 24/7). Your over the top reaction to my comments belie your assertion. You folks are going to be more hurt by what is coming than you imagine now. It’s almost a law of nature that wrongs get righted in a much bigger way. It’s called retribution and it’s coming for the Trump sychophants and hypocrites.

"Combining the head of government and head of state into a single Executive was a bad idea..."

A good idea one presumes might have made an America today with a Dow 99,999 and a greater military superpower? Or are you suggesting had the framers been as smart as you are that they would have created something so great so as to end all scarcity and want worldwide?

We know the Bible, Shakespear, and the Constitution of the United States ain't shown you shit, because you are so smart, so why not just be in a position to create your own works greater than those which you shit upon in your infinite shitting?

It's clearly a Democrat talking point here: How could any Christian support Donald Trump, the adulterer?

Easy.

1) Trump is not God, nor was he ordained a king by the prophets, unlike David. And David was an adulterer as well... and the greatest king in Israelite history. But God punished him for his adultery.... and led David to victory after victory. Is Trump better than David? Not at all. But if David can be the greatest king in Israelite history despite his adultery, then that tells me that God can use even an adulterer. It's not my place to judge... especially since it was quite some time ago.

2) This whole "Depose Trump because he's an adulterer and put moral Democrats in charge instead!" is a bit... unhinged. First, one thing the "MeToo" movement has revealed is that for all of Trump's faults, there appears to be not a single Democrat male who isn't worse. Of Course Inga doesn't like that particular fact discussed. Who would we replace Trump with? Matt Laurer who had a rape button? Bill Clinton? Bob Menendez, out on pedo island? Anthony Weiner? Bernie, who likes tying women up and beating them? Hillary, who supports men who rape women? These are the moral paragons of virtue Inga wants to replace Trump with.

3) As I told ARM yesterday when he tried this: Let's compare, shall we? Trump is defending Christianity while having personal moral issues and failings. Your side, Inga, wants to jail people for speaking of Christ. You despise free speech; you want to jail people for calling a man a man. Hillary vowed to use the state to "Change religious doctrine." You claim to be a Christian and yet you support the Democrat's plan to use government force to change Christian churches. You support Muslims having the right to mutilate women, but you demand that Christians be silenced because "Separation of church and state." And the state is everywhere... leaving no room for God.

4) Trump's personal peccadillos are so... old fashioned. He slept with a porn star? How... usual. If this was a Democrat, we'd be told to shut up, bigot, because President XXXX just came out as a tranny who participates in massive orgies and anyone who disagrees or thinks that is not 100% the greatest idea ever should be fired and jailed.

It's a mercy that all we have is Trump sleeping with a hot girl. Unlike your side's freak shows, Inga, which you 100% celebrate and demand that we celebrate too.

Is it any wonder why Christians defend Trump? Your side wants to destroy us.

Hey Inga: Do you support your fellow Democrat's open admission they do not care about anti-semitism?

Quote:"We don't care about anti-Semitism in this office," Murray's senior adviser said. "We care about transgenders, we care about blacks, we care about Hispanics, we care about gays, we care about lesbians, we care about the disabled."

"We don't care about anti-Semitism in this office," he said.End quote. That's Washington Democrat Senator Patty Murray, by the way. Your side, Inga. Full on "Kill all Jews" is a-ok with your side. How can you possibly support that, Inga? You repeatedly claim holier than thou status, you repeatedly claim how much better than us you are, how you are such a better Christian than all of us. How can you possibly support full Jew hate?

Ace of Spades: "Because most people don't really care enough about these issues to really engage with them on an intellectual level; they just want to know what to claim to believe so that other people won't think they're weird, and deem them unfriendable, undatable, and poor candidates for promotion inside The Corporation."

Why earnest right-wing arguments fall on deaf ears. And why Trump is the last best hope for defeating Maoists (short of taking up Mao himself's best argument for power.)

Blogger Inga said...“And hoping the people in the Philippines die just because you don't like Buwaya”

You’re lying now. How does this comport with your Christianity?

1/18/18, 12:37 PM

No, I am not. When the leader of the Philippines insulted your true god, Obama, and Buwaya defended the comment, you said angrily that you hoped the next time the Philippines were hit with a natural disaster, we wouldn't send them a dime of aid. And that, in effect, means you would rather have those people die - because their leader had the gall to insult Obama.

Of course, you'll deny it, as you often deny heartless and stupid things you said in the past, but I recall it quite clearly.

You also recently called Pilipino nurses stupid, although I was cared for by one once during a brief hospital stay (small sample size I know, but so is yours) and I found her charming and competent. You don't appear to have much love or charity for those particular brown people. Of course, they are mostly Christian and suffer from both domestic and imported Islamic terrorism, so of course, they're not quite as good as the Yemenis or Syrian Muslims you'd be happy to have move in next door to you.

As for my Christianity, I don't claim to be a good one. I remember Jesus warned about strutting about bragging about what a terrific person you are. He didn't think much of virtue signaling, which might be one reason Christianity is hated by so many leftists. All they do is virtue signal.

I agree with Exiled: I also distinctly recall Inga wishing horrific natural disasters on the Philippines because she was soundly destroyed by Buwaya. In fact, as I remember Inga spent a great deal of time ranting about the evils of letting Philipino people into the medical profession. It was textbook racism.

But of course, like all racism from the left, that doesn't count. The KKK after all is a Democrat party thing.

Quote:"We don't care about anti-Semitism in this office," Murray's senior adviser said. "We care about transgenders, we care about blacks, we care about Hispanics, we care about gays, we care about lesbians, we care about the disabled."

The Left long ago created an alliance with the islamists as they shared the same goals: destruction of the west.

The lefties, of course, fall into the "the crocodiles will eat them last" category, but there it is nonetheless.

So, naturally, the Jews by necessity must be collateral damage as the lefties attempt to create their Brave New World using the islamists as a useful tool in tearing the west down.

Vance: "In fact, as I remember Inga spent a great deal of time ranting about the evils of letting Philipino people into the medical profession. It was textbook racism."

Indeed.

Of course, if all those Philipinos that Inga wanted the US to have nothing to do with (because they are brown people? hmmmm) had adopted Islam and began honor killing their females, well, Inga and the lefties can't get enough of those types into the US fast enough!

But you must remember, just as with the Lefts beloved Fidel in Cuba who ordered homosexuals lobotomized (but in a "good" lefty way), any racism displayed by a lefty is completely justified and understandable.

“Vance: "In fact, as I remember Inga spent a great deal of time ranting about the evils of letting Philipino people into the medical profession. It was textbook racism."

Why do you people need to depend on lies and gross mischaracterization ? I know why you people identify so strongly with Trump, you are no different. You really are disgusting people, deplorable even. It’s not too late to redeem yourselves.

Inga, someone on your side did on this site. I presume it was you. If it wasn't, care to name your fellow leftist who wrote about 40 posts decrying any Filipino person in medicine in the US? If it was Chuck, that's ok, he counts as a leftist.

It was, however, a shining example of leftist racism in action. I am not surprised you are trying to say it wasn't you.

Vance, not to defend Inga in any way, but I believe that was Trumpit. He was ranting how his sister had killed his mother in the hospital by getting a Filipino doctor and nurse to withhold life support services.

Inga has certainly cast aspersions upon buwaya, in ways that could, by her own standards, be characterized as racist. Not smart - the Filipino crocodile that shares the wisdom and perspective of a long, successful life has a perspective that is very much worth listening to. While I don't always agree with his conclusions, I always read what he has to say.

Mr Fabulous: "Vance, not to defend Inga in any way, but I believe that was Trumpit. He was ranting how his sister had killed his mother in the hospital by getting a Filipino doctor and nurse to withhold life support services."

That happened, but so did Inga's attacks on Philipinos.

She only did it because she was lurching about in her inability to deal with basic logic and facts (big surprise) and she let her mask slip. Like LLR Chuck does now about 3 or 4 times a day.

But, since history begins anew for Inga everyday, she has "forgotten" her attacks on these non-muslim brown foreigners.

Vance said...Inga, someone on your side did on this site. I presume it was you."

It was Inga. She does benefit from the fact that I'm not sufficiently interested to go back through the blog archives to find it. Maybe I will next time Althouse has a post up with a Philippines tag.

And remember, when I went back to read the Election 2016 threads at Althouse, I found and reposted Inga's contemptible comment that "we should all just lie back and enjoy it." In other words, "Ha, ha, rightwingers, you're gonna get raped tonight!"

Using rape imagery to describe what you thought would be a big victory for you - well, now that's what a good Christian does!

I believe Mr. Fabulous is right; in that the specific incident I recall was indeed Trumpit. Naturally, Inga, ARM and the rest cheered him on. But in that specific instance, it was not Inga that went on a racist tirade. I stand corrected.

"Vance, not to defend Inga in any way, but I believe that was Trumpit. He was ranting how his sister had killed his mother in the hospital by getting a Filipino doctor and nurse to withhold life support services. "

Trumpit did say that, but Inga chimed in to say that Filipino nurses are stupid.

Remember, this is the same woman who thinks calling Haiti a "shithole" is racist.

I said nurses and doctors EDUCATED in the Phillipines were sometimes dangerous and incompetent. I also said Filipino doctors and nurses educated in the states had NO such issues. It was the education system I was criticizing, not the ethnicity. Again, why do you people feel the need to grossly mischaracterize and even outright lie? Can’t you argue on the merits? Are you incompetent?

FTR: right wing evangelicals are not into electing non-sinners to protect this country. Because there are none and never have been any. That goes from GW on , President sinners all the way down . But we accept justified sinners with Jesus Christ in them by God's election.

That is what Christianity is all about. And there is also the massive courage , wisdom and intelligence gifts in the magnificent sinner Trump.

Earnest Prole said...Not to rain on the circle jerk but if Trump caves on immigration, as it appeared he was prepared to do before Dick Durbin rescued him from himself, his former supporters will be using the term wussy to describe him.

1/18/18, 8:34 AM

EP, I have long thought you were a jerk, and quite possibly wicked in spots, but I didn't actually think you were stupid. What you wrote there is stupid.

Plus which...I don't understand why people who do not support the President, expect him to do for them.

“Remember, this is the same woman who thinks calling Haiti a "shithole" is racist.”

It IS racist characterizing people from “shithole” brown countries as not being as worthy of immigration as the nice white nations like Norway. Try to be at least a little bit honest, but I know that’s asking too much of you. We all know what he meant.

I sometimes wonder what drives you people. Xenophobia and bigotry trump (pun intended) any Christian teaching you’ve had and you easily put it on the back burner. You rationalize it, you deny it, you even revel in it like dogs rolling in shit. The smell of the comments sections are smelling particularly foul the last few days.

The people from there may or may not be good individuals but that is besides the point. They have no right to immigrate here and at a time when industries are becoming increasingly automatized we do not need illiterate unskilled people.

You want them here because they will vote Dem (either legally or illegally). Outside of that, they can rot in ghettos for all you care.

But that such people apparently sincerely believe that les deplorables grant them any moral credibility, let alone moral authority, is one of the most fascinating studies in human delusions of the age.

This phenomenon may just be a particular instance of what Haidt noted: that conservatives understand liberals but liberals don't understand conservatives, so whatever liberals are banging on about to conservatives is very often going to be off-kilter enough to end up in "wtf?" territory. Lately, though, the moral grandstanding seems to me to be developing into a form of sociopathy, rather than being a basic philosophical misunderstanding or workaday lack of self-insight.

I don't understand why people who do not support the President, expect him to do for them.

When HW Bush reneged on his promise of no new taxes, he not only turned his supporters against him but also turned himself into a wussy. If Trump reneges on immigration, he'll be both toast and a wussy. You read it here first.